Meadow View Health Services
3613 S 13th St, Sheboygan, WI 53081 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 50 certified beds · (920) 458-4040 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (23% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.2% | 16.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.1% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.2% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 5.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.2% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.6% | 18.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.4% | 16.9% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.4% | 5.0% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.7% | 24.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 40.4% | 15.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.4% | 82.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 34.1% | 23.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.0% | 15.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.06 | 1.66 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.00 | 2.29 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
59.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 27.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 22 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 59.2%CMS range 46.3–74.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 7.8–15.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 27.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 27.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 9.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.6% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 3.8–11.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.67 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 50 beds and averages 31.1 residents a day — about 62% occupied, or roughly 19 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.59 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.19 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.79 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.40 to 0.66 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 23% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-07-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure interventions were followed to prevent a fall for 1 resident (R1) of 4 sampled residents. On 6/1/24, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-C did not transfer R1 according to R1's plan of care which resulted in a fall with a left hip fracture. Findings include: On 7/2/24, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including displaced fracture of base of neck of left femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, pressure ulcer of right heel, unstageable, fracture of unspecified part of neck of right femur, and pneumonia. R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/12/24, stated R1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated R1 had intact cognition. R1 did not have an activated power of attorney (POA). A progress note, dated 6/1/24 at 1:54 PM, indicated: At approximately 8:15 AM, the writer heard a bang from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in a sanitary manner. This practice had the potential to affect all 31 residents residing in the facility.The facility did not thaw frozen food via a safe thawing method.The facility did not consistently follow safe food cooling protocol.The facility did not consistently dispose of food items in a manner that ensured food safety.Findings include:During an initial kitchen tour that began at 8:17 AM on 12/16/25, Dietary Manager (DM)-D indicated the facility follows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code.Thawing:The 2022 FDA Food Code documents at 3-501.13 Thawing: Except as specified in (D) of this section, time/temperature control for safety food shall be thawed: (A) Under refrigeration that maintains the food temperature at 5 degrees Celsius (C) (41 degrees Fahrenheit (F)) or less; or (B) Completely submerged under running water: (1) At a water temperature of 21 degrees C (70 degrees F) or below; (2) With sufficient water velocity to agitate and float off…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-18 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — patternProvide appropriate foot care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the provision of foot and nail care for 8 residents (R) (R21, R5, R9, R10, R6, R27, R29, and R30) of 8 sampled residents with diabetes.The facility did not provide daily diabetic foot checks for R21, R5, R9, R10, R6, R27, R29, and R30 in accordance with professional standards of practice, the residents' care plans, and the facility's policy. Findings include:The facility's Skin Integrity-Foot Care policy, dated 12/15/23, indicates: It is the policy of the facility to ensure residents receive proper treatment and care within professional standards of practice and state scope of practice, as applicable, to maintain mobility and good foot health. This policy pertains to maintaining the skin integrity of the foot .The facility will provide foot care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice, including the prevention of complications from the resident's medical condition. The facility will utilize a systematic approach for the prevention and management of foot ulcers, including…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-18 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure weights were monitored for 4 residents (R) (R27, R30, R36, and R37) of 12 sampled residents.The facility did not obtain weights or re-weights for R27, R30, R36, and R37 in accordance with physician orders and the facility's policy. In addition, the facility did not update the physician regarding R27, R30, R36, R37's weight loss/gain of more than 5 pounds. Findings include:The facility's Weight Monitoring policy, revised 12/21/22, indicates: The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) will strive to prevent, monitor, and intervene for undesirable weight change for our residents .6. Any weight change of 5 pounds or more since the last weight assessment will be retaken for confirmation .8. The threshold for significant weight change will be based on the following criteria: a. one month - 5% weight change is significant; Greater than 5% is severe. b. 3 months - 7.5% weight change is significant; Greater than 7.5% is severe. c. 6 months - 10% weight change…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff and resident interview and record review, the facility did not ensure an allegation of misappropriation was thoroughly investigated for 1 resident (R) (R38) of 1 sampled resident.R38 reported that $42 was taken from R38's room. The facility did not thoroughly investigate the allegation of misappropriation.Findings include:The facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy, revised 7/15/22, indicates: It is the policy of the facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property .Investigation of Alleged Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation: .Written procedures for investigations include: Providing complete and thorough documentation of the investigation .On 12/16/25, Surveyor reviewed R38's medical record. R38 had diagnoses including Prader-Willi syndrome, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. R38's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/10/25, had a Brief Interview for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-08-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in a sanitary manner. This practice had the potential to affect 32 of 33 residents residing in the facility. One resident received nutrition exclusively via tube feeding. The facility did not consistently label, date, and dispose of food items in a manner that ensured food safety. The facility did not consistently follow safe food cooling protocol. Findings include: On 8/27/24 at 11:50 AM, Surveyor interviewed District Manager (DM)-C who stated the facility followed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code. Food Labeling/Storage: The 2022 FDA Food Code documents at 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food (TCS), Date Marking: (A) Except when packaging food using a reduced oxygen packaging method as specified under § 3-502.12, and except as specified in (E) and (F) of this section, refrigerated, ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food prepared and held in a food establishment for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-28 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure meal items were prepared in a method that conserved the nutritive value and did not ensure menus and serving sizes were followed. This practice had the potential to affect more than 4 residents residing in the facility. One resident received nutrition exclusively via tube feeding. Kitchen staff did not follow a recipe to ensure the nutritive value was maintained during food preparation. In addition, staff did not consistently follow the menu or serving sizes. Findings include: The facility's contracted service's Menu policy, revised 9/2017, indicates: Menus will be planned in advance to meet the nutritional needs of the residents in accordance with national guidelines .Menu cycles will include standardized recipes. The facility's contracted service's Food; Quality and Palatability policy, revised 2/2023, indicates: The Dining Services Director and Cook(s) are responsible for food preparation. Menu items are prepared according…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-28 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 2 Residents (R) (R18 and R23) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization received a transfer notice that included the date of the transfer, the reason for the transfer, the location of the transfer, and appeal rights. R18 was transferred to the hospital on 6/14/24. Neither R18 or R18's guardian were provided with a written transfer notice. R23 was transferred to the hospital on 7/19/24. R23 was not provided with a written transfer notice. Findings include: The facility's Transfer and Discharge Policy, dated 7/15/22, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to permit each resident to remain in the facility, and not transfer or discharge the resident from the facility except as initiated by the resident, necessary for the health and safety of the resident or other individuals are endangered, or as otherwise permitted by applicable law .Transfer refers to the movement of a resident from a bed in one certified facility to a bed in another…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-28 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 2 Residents (R) (R18 and R23) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization received written information on the duration of the bed hold policy, the reserve bed payment policy, and the right to return to the facility. R18 was transferred to the hospital on 6/14/24. Neither R18 or R18's guardian were provided with a written bed hold notice. R23 was transferred to the hospital on 7/19/24. R23 was not provided with a written bed hold notice. Findings include: The facility's Transfer and Discharge Policy, dated 7/15/22, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to permit each resident to remain in the facility, and not transfer or discharge the resident from the facility except as initiated by the resident, necessary for the health and safety of the resident or other individuals are endangered, or as otherwise permitted by applicable law .Transfer refers to the movement of a resident from a bed in one certified facility to a bed in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 2 Residents (R) (R6 and R12) of 2 sampled residents who were reviewed for smoking. R6 was known by the facility to smoke. Staff did not accurately assess or reassess R6's ability to safely smoke. R12 was known by the facility to smoke. Staff did not complete a smoking care plan for R12. In addition, staff did not follow R12's Nicotine Assessment to ensure safe smoking. Findings include: The facility's Smoking Policy revised, 7/14/22, indicates: 1. Residents who smoke or use smokeless tobacco products shall have a Nicotine Assessment completed upon admission, quarterly, annually and PRN. 2. Risk factors identified through the assessment process shall be used in the development of the pan of care .5. If a resident is determined to be unsafe .they may be required to smoke with supervision only. 6. A resident is determined to be a hazardous smoker if he/she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-19 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure abuse policies were implemented for 1 staff (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-C) of 8 staff reviewed for background checks. The facility did not review an Integrative Background Information System (IBIS) or Department of Justice (DOJ) report prior to CNA-C's hire. Findings include: The facility's Abuse Neglect, and Exploitation policy, with a review date of 7/2022, indicated: Screening: A. Potential employees will be screened for a history of abuse, neglect, and exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property. 1. Background, reference, and credentials checks shall be conducted on potential employees .Background checks, including rechecks, will be completed consistent with applicable state laws and regulation. Responsibility of performance of compliance checks on contracted temporary staff will be established via contractual agreement. 3. The facility will maintain documentation of proof that the screening occurred. On 7/17/23, Surveyor requested Background Information Disclosure (BID), IBIS, and DOJ…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff, resident and family interview, and record review, the facility did not develop an individualized comprehensive care plan for 1 Resident (R) (R18) of 15 sampled residents. R18's plan of care did not address R18's hearing loss. Finding include: Surveyor reviewed R18's medical record. R18 had diagnoses that included Meniere's disease left ear and depression. R18 also had a cochlear implant and an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare (POAHC). R18's Minimum Data Set (MDS), assessment, dated 4/25/23, contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15 which indicated R18 had intact cognition. The MDS also indicated R18 had the ability to hear adequately with a hearing aid and was able to be understood and understood others with a hearing aid. R18's care plan did not identify a difficulty with communication or interventions to make communication possible for R18. On 7/17/23 at 10:20 AM, Surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-E who indicated R18's hearing aid broke and R18 needed a new one. CNA-E indicated CNA-E…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE — 59 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 3.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 58 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 58; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSHF OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/24/2017 |
| MILLS, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 20% | since 06/29/2017 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/31/2024 |
| HOEHN, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/29/2017 |
| CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/15/2025 |
| CONTINUUM THERAPY PARTNERS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/15/2025 |
| NSH REHAB LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| WIPFLI LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2025 |
| BAUMANN, TROY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2017 |
| BAUTISTA, JILLIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/15/2026 |
| BELONGIA, CHRISTINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| GEE, DARREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/30/2021 |
| GREER, LAUREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/29/2023 |
| PATZER, COLLEEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/14/2023 |
| PURTELL, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2018 |
| RAMNANAN, KESHNI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2023 |
| MEADOW VIEW PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2022 |
| NSHF WISCONSIN LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/12/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
9 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $226K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in WI
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Wisconsin Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 525605. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.